Incidence and Natural Progression of Neurogenic Shock after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurogenic shock, a distributive type of circulatory shock after spinal cord injury (SCI), results in profound hypotension. The consequent hemodynamic instability complicates clinical management, delays surgical intervention, and impacts neurological outcome. Moreover, the reported incidence of this condition varies significantly. We establish the true incidence of neurogenic shock by comparing the most common clinical definitions used to diagnose the condition. Further, we characterize the acute progression and recovery of neurogenic shock. Daily blood pressure, heart rate, and fluid management as well as vasopressor therapy and neurologic status were collected over 30 days from 84 adults admitted to our tertiary trauma center after cervical (n = 56) and thoracic (n = 28) SCI. We found that the reported incidence of neurogenic shock varied greatly depending on which clinical definition was applied. By using a novel combination of hemodynamic and laboratory criteria to define neurogenic shock, the calculated incidence (29% cervical SCI) in our sample most appropriately reflects the true incidence, finding that hypovolemia was the primary factor responsible for the inconsistency in incidence reports between studies. In addition, we found a characteristic decline in blood pressure after the first week post-injury and that fluid management is not currently an integral aspect of clinical management (all persons were treated at a net fluid intake ≤ zero). The results demonstrate the need for accurate identification of neurogenic shock through consistent and appropriate criteria, which is not only important from a clinical point of view, but also in establishing accurate epidemiology to responsibly allocate resources to its management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".